I find it very disturbing that some judge's never look what is at the end of the lead and continually put u[ handlers, because of who they are. I've always wondered "if" ethics has fallen by the way side with handlers. Or if egos have gotten in the way and they do take such dogs in the ring just to prove a point.

One can only be responsible for one's own breeding program and only take the best of the best into the ring. If we don't then we are only fooling ourselves and short changing our breeding program. It is defeating the purpose of showing; to obtain approval of our breeding stock. We all know there is no perfect dog, but I was taught, if you see 3 faults in a dog, don't show it, the judge will find more. So, it's the 3 strikes your out.

Also, if a handler can show anything, then what is it saying about he Judges? This happens more often than most might think I bet. Being so, where are the police to police them? Whos job it it? The AKCs? The mother clubs? The exhibitors? I say all of them. Someone has to complain to get the ball rolling.
This was years ago, but I watched a stunning Cocker in the ring, and was awed at the dog. Everyone was just staring at this guy strut his stuff. He was handled by his owner/breeder. Then a handler walks in with a Cocker that had obvious faults in the rear and not much confidence at all. But the handler is well known so guess which dog won? That was just one show I attended. I have been to about 30 in my life and that happened on about a quarter of them.

It happened recently at one of the biggest shows of the year. A handler had sent their assistant in with the a dog into the BOB ring (ring time conflict). Well the handler finished in another breed ring and was allowed to step into the ring and take over for the assistant. The atmosphere changed completely when said handler stepped into the ring. Now keep in mind some of the most beautiful dogs were being represented in this ring. And guess which dog was put up (and the dog was so undeserving)? Yep!.....The handler and the judge were from the same geographical area and the judge knew this handler from the time the handler was a child....knew the whole family, as the handler came from a handling family. Sad, but judges like this are also contributing to poor quality breeding dogs.

That is sad. That is where I think that police are not doing their job and the breed as a whole is failing for it. Not as big of a scale as puppy mills and BYB do to the breed but think about it. If that dog that was undeserving produces 100 pups in his lifetime all championed sired and those offspring go on the carry one his faults in the hands of exhibitors....the consequences of one judge doing this is huge...now have one in each state and see how that snowballs.
That was why I chose to bow out of the show scene and even stopped going to watch the shows. It disgusted me. But I was wrong too, because I did nothing. That is what my intentions were when I added this to the thread.
Does the YTCA have that on their agenda? are they looking into this seriously?
I think ALL mother clubs should be pushing the AKC to improve and shape up their judges. I cannot effect change on that level but I know that if enough YTCA members pushed that it could end up on the agenda...and if all clubs banded together to represent not only that but a ban on puppy mills...think of how much better the breeds would be:D

Wow! What a bunch of BS!

It's in the last page of the YTCA meeting previously posted.

I would have said that handlers get put up more than owner/exhibitors, but take a look at these stats. From the infodog.com website.

JUDGES ONLY PUT UP HANDLERS, SO
HANDLERS MUST BE THE ONLY ONES WINNING AT DOG SHOWS
Really? If you speak with very many exhibitors they’ll be only too happy to express that statement. This got us thinking. So many folks believe this to be so, but upon what is this statement based? Perception? Experience? Their breed? What are the facts?
We decided to take a look at wins at dog shows. Using published records for MB-F shows held in 2008 and 2009 we looked at:
The number of Winners wins awarded
The number of Bests of Breed awarded
The number of Group Firsts awarded
The number of Bests in Show awarded
The number of these wins that were awarded to dogs with no agent listed and the number that were awarded to dogs that had an agent listed.

Here’s what we found.
For 2008:
82,724 Winners awards
11,771 (14%) were given to dogs with handlers listed and
70,953 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
50,587 Bests of Breed awards
17,033 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,554 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3402 Group Firsts
1857 (55%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1545 (45%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
488 Bests in Show awards
323 (66%) awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
165 (34%) awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
For 2009:
82,237 Winners awards
11,239 (14%) were given to dogs with a handler listed and
70,998 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
51,176 Bests of Breed awards
17,566 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,610 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3445 Group Firsts
1810 (53%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1635 (47%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
496 Bests in Show awards
310 (62%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
186 (38%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
The numbers are what they are. To find your individual breed, go to the accompanying table to see the numbers and percentages for Winners and Best of Breed. Please remember that not all breeds compete at each show. The totals account for every time a breed was entered at a show and competed. There are separate tables (by Variety Group) for 2008 and 2009. View the 2008 table
View the 2009 table

Actually that chart does show that handlers have a much higher chance at winning BIS. Notice handlers are only 14% of the overall winning population, but on wins for BIS they hold 66% in 2008 and 62% in 2009. This is a chart on percentages and it's really not statistics, and percentages can be very misleading, although they can give you some information. What you really need to know is what percentage of the overall showing population are handlers, and compare that number with the times handlers won. By doing this, and doing a statistical analysis you can get a number that actually shows the increased odds a handler has.

It makes sense to me that an experience handler would be able to show off a dog better, and make an average dog look like a champ. All this means to me, is that you better really research your breeders and lines before you buy a breeding dog.

I was at a show last year and was watching the corgis, austrailian sheps and another breed and that judge picked a pro handler every time. Not one owner handler got anything even though in most of the cases the owner/handler dogs were better. I finally got up a left.
One small way breeders can get the point across to these type of judges is to not enter under them.

Are handlers and agents always listed? I dont think they are.Please correct me if I am wrong.

No they are not always listed, it is up to the person entering the dogs for the competition to indicate if they are using a handler or not. Still there would have to be a significant number of entries that didn't use a handler to swing the % a whole lot.

Interesting figures, to say the least. I doubt there will ever be a shortage of puppies.

Not so because handlers on average would show more dogs in any given day of competition then your average owner/handler. So at any given show there are likely to be at least 2-3 times as many owner/handlers, then pros showing the dog.
What I get from this chart is that once you get to group level handlers avg wins goes up markedly. I wonder if that is a self fulfilling prophecy. Common knowledge in show world, that unless you are a very experienced exhibitor best to hand off your dog to a pro for the group.

I knew what you meant. That a professional can make the worst dog look good. And that is not how it should be.

I'd like to ask about puppy mills and their connections with registries and how that affects the standing of American and Canadian dogs worldwide. It seems that this connection is what prevents both countries from being full members of FCI.

This quote may explain what I mean...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"• Competence and responsibility for breeding rests with the member countries and contract partners of the FCI and includes breeding guidance, breeding advice and monitoring breeding as well as the keeping of the studbook.

• The FCI member countries and contract partners are under the obligation to draw up their own breeding regulations based on the FCI Breeding Regulations, in which the breeding objectives are laid down. Such regulations must take appropriate and reasonable account of the specific working characteristics of the respective breeds.

Dog traders and commercial dog breeders are not permitted to undertake breeding in a member country or contract partner of the FCI."

From this source.. fci.be/uploaded_files/Breeding_EN.doc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are the parent clubs not concerned that this one thing (dog traders and commercial breeders) is the sticking point that separates us from the rest of the world? While the AKC and CKC certainly can't outlaw puppy mills on their own, they can specify what one is and refuse to register dogs from these sources. Would that be good enough for FCI?

I've also seen on other breeds' forums and pages that North American dogs are not the 'same' as dogs from other countries, and not for the better. Do the breed clubs not feel it's desirable to conform to FCI or are they content to go it alone, as far as stewardship of breeds? After all, isn't the #1 priority of any breed club the 'betterment of the breed'?

Just asking a few open questions as it seems like both the U.S. and Canada stick out like sore thumbs in the dog world.

Yes, I agree the chart does suggest that "once you get to group level handlers avg wins goes up markedly."

Gail,

It's very dependent on what your goal is in showing your dog. Are you showing the dog to gain approval of it's worthiness; are you attempting to put Breed Points on him to the top standings; or is your goal, group wins and BIS wins.

There are all kinds of records to beat. However, I've seen Breeder/Owner/Handled dogs make it to #1. No one is arguing that Professional Handlers have a bit more clout in the Showing Arena, they travel all over the country/world, it's their business. My preference is to handle my own dog, to me it's a bit more satisfying and at times a bit more expensive. Would I hesitate to send my dog to a handler? Only if I was physically unable to handle my own dog and then I would only send them the best.

Wow, good observation. it sounds like the breed clubs need to put the pressure on the AKC. I understand the concerns, as they have been explained. But it seems to me if the breed clubs worked with the government, on the wording of the bill, most of the concerns could be avoided.

It is not just puppymills per say, but HVB's ie high volumne breeders.

I am certainly not comfortable with AKC and the CKC sleeping with the HVB"s. Maybe this is a short term strategy until they work on getting them closed down, IDK. You know keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

IMO HVB's have no place in the pet industry at all. Look at the illogic of it. You are breeding to place dogs in PET homes and you keep them in cages, and sheds, and an environment so totally divorced from what this pup will actually be sold into. Where is the socialization? There is None.

Work to get the law changed, easier at the AKC to do I think. Mandate, mandatory health tests on all breeding sires/dams, prior to being able to register a litter permanently with the AKC. The HVB's will literally scream at this one.
Paperwork must be submitted for those tests through a reputable agency.
Demand microchipping on all purebred dog registrations, and consider going to mandatory DNA testing.

Anyhow just a few suggestions.

Isn't HVB just a nice way to say puppymill. I don't believe all puppymills are horrid, there might be some that do take care of their dogs. But to me a puppy mill, is where the owners makes living manufacturing puppies.

it is an occupation, not a hobby.

Mary for me those statistics were eye opening, at least at the class and BOB level a owner handled dog looks to have as good a chance as any to win.
I'd love to see some stats from Canada though. When we went for top dog for Magic he was with a handler (ringside pickup only) and we placed in the top 3 for breed two years in a row. This was in Canada.

I do hesitate all the time to send my dog to a handler. Even though I do have some physical infirmities to deal with, I've had at least one bad experience in the past with sending a dog out to a handler.

Now I always try to do ringside pick-up and baring that if absolutely necessary I will send my dog off with a handler. And like you, I do try to find the best of the best.

It is nice to see an organization recognizing an interesting topic, and taking the time to number crunch.

For me generally speaking, I would compete more in the obedience/agility realm, and then do other fun dog sports with my dog. Once the dog has his/her's CH, then my focus will change to obedience titles.

At least in the obedience rally and agility rings they don't penalize if you as the handler can't move so well.

I remember with Magic for one of his trials in CD, we were moving out at the fast pace, I stumbled and fell, not a good thing for me as I have trouble getting up. Magic stopped, turned, came back to me, I did his command for him to stoop, then I placed my body weight on him, and command lift, he brought me back up to my feet. We lost no points for that, in fact we took high in class at 194.5 that day.
I will one day get his service dog title, then we can fly anywhere together:D

That is such nice story. I too have a disability that would make it difficult if not impossible for me to be in the ring.

I also have a disability that would prevent me from handling caused from a surgery a little over a year ago. However only been in the ring a few times eons ago and really did not like it, preferred handlers, but now because I cannot I find myself thinking about it. But alas, reality takes hold and I come back to my senses.

Well in another thread I think in showing, Mary and Ladyhawk did say they saw ppl in wheelchair/walker, and there is a pro handler with only one arm.

Somehow I thought and not too sure where I read this that motorized wheelchairs were unacceptable in the show ring.

If this is true, maybe you can consider a motorized wheelchair.

I'm not sure what breed you have. But if you have YT how would we be able to stack dog on the table with a wheel chair? Table heights are usually high. IDK, maybe they lower them for that.

My guess is they have to accomodate the handicapped or risk a lawsuit.

According to the AKC:

Disabled Handlers (March 1998 Board meeting)
The AKC strives to provide an opportunity to participate in its events. In the case of conformation judging, where decisions are based solely on the quality of the dogs, a judge may modify the regular judging procedure to accommodate a disabled handler.

If a modification of normal judging procedures is required, the judge needs only to determine that it would not inhibit the ability of the other handlers in the ring to show their dogs. A disabled handler may compete using a cane, crutch, or electric-powered wheelchair. However, when gaiting the dogs as a group, the judge should ensure that a handler who cannot maintain a normal gait for the breed being exhibited, be placed in line where it will not interfere with the ability of the other dogs to gait properly.
Blind handlers may have a second person assist them in individual and group gaiting of the dogs. If the ring surface or terrain makes it difficult for the assisted handler to gait the dog at a normal speed, the judge may adjust where the dog is placed in line to give all handlers an equal opportunity to show their dogs. Blind handlers may have the second person assist in placing table dogs onto tables and verify weight and measurements that may be required under the breed standard. The primary function of exhibiting the dog is the responsibility of the handler and not the second person in the ring.


Taken from: American Kennel Club - AKC Board Policy Manual

I remember seeing a lady showing a staffordshire bull terrier in a motorized wheel chair. She did quite well and the dog gaited great. There wasnt a huge entry, maybe about 4 dogs.

There is a handicapped person in my club and she shows in the ring. Her chair is mortorized. And she wins quite often. She also does obedience.

I have said the exact same thing regarding being responsible for what you breed. I LOVE this idea! If all breeders were held accountable for what they do for the life of their dogs I believe it would make many think twice about the responsibility of breeding. :thumbup:

I love the idea also, in theory. In reality, what do you think isd going to happen to those dogs, once they are returned to a puppymiller?